Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive, and the description adds meaningful context on top: it combines security flags with ABI function names, uses AI to explain dangerous capabilities, and includes pricing and authentication requirements. No contradiction exists between the description and annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The core purpose is front-loaded and the description is well structured, moving from what the tool does to how it works to practical pricing/auth details. It is slightly repetitive around the word 'dangerous' and mixes marketing-style phrasing with formal details, but it remains appropriately sized and every sentence contributes useful information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given a single required parameter and the presence of an output schema, the description provides enough invocation-relevant detail: input address, pricing model, free-tier option, and the fact that no wallet or API key is needed. It is missing explicit comparisons to similar tools like contract_danger, but it is otherwise complete for an agent to call the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the sole address parameter is already fully documented in the schema. The description only repeats that address is required and does not add format, chain, or additional semantic details beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: explaining a contract's dangerous powers in plain English and producing a danger level by combining security flags with verified ABI function names. It is specific about the verb and resource, and it distinguishes itself from raw flag checks, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling contract_danger tool.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies when to use the tool: when you want a plain-English interpretation of a contract's dangerous capabilities rather than just raw flags. It also provides practical call prerequisites like needing an address and not requiring a wallet or API key, but it does not give explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or name alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.